On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 21:03:45 +0000 Glenn Morton wrote:
>SJ>Glenn cites only *two* examples of long gaps of 100 and 60 million years
>>and then claims they are "quite normal in the fossil record." Since there are
>>over a quarter of a million fossils *species* (let alone fossil individuals):
>Stephen [...] Here
>are more where those come from. I didn't cite more because it was tiresome
>and Useless to do so. If two examples won't satisfy you, neither will 100.
>I have done this before and you didn't pay any attention then and I doubt
>you will now. [...].
Thanks to Glenn for posting this list of *sixteen* examples.
But Glenn is right that "neither will a 100" examples satisfy me. But the
problem is not with me, the problem is with Glenn's claim. After all 100 out
of 250,000 fossil species is only *0.04%* of the total number of fossil
species. To support his claim that such long gaps of 100-60 million years in
the fossil record are "quite normal", he would need to show that something
of the order of 10% (ie. 25,000) fossil species, have gaps of at least 60
million years between them, and even then I am being *generous*!
GM>For those who might not remember, the purpose of this is to show that
>Stephen's claim that longisquama's proto-feather
This is question-begging, ie. assuming what needs to be proved. We are
talking about Longisquama's long *scales*, not about a "proto-feather".
GM>was separated from the
>first feather by so many years that it couldn't be connected with the
>feather is wrong
And this is trying to shift the burden of proof. I did not say that
"Longisquama's" long scales "couldn't be connected with the feather". My
point is that there is *no evidence* that Longisquama's long scales were
connected to the first feather, ie. Archaeopteryx's. It is up to Glenn to
make his case that they were related, not mine to prove they weren't.
GM>Since like gives rise to like, one can examine the record
>of turtles or other animals to see the size of the gap between the first
>and second occurrence of two things that ARE related! Then one can see if
>the 80 million year gap between the protofeather and the first feather are
>so unsual.
Glenn is still comparing two quite obviously related *whole organisms*, ie.
turtles, with two *parts of organisms* (ie. scales and feathers).
*No one*, not even the strictest Fiat Creationist, would dispute that two
turtles separated by 60 million years are related. But nearly *everyone*,
including the majority of paleontologists, would dispute that
Longisquama's scales are related to Archaeopteryx's feathers.
GM>400 million year gap in first and second land life which were hollow
>filaments.
>"1.2 billion Hollow filaments Arizona
>800 million Hollow filaments California
> ~ Robert J. Horodyski and L. Paul Knauth, "Life on Land in the
>Precambrian," Science, Jan. 28, 1994, p. 494-498. see also "When Life
>First Sprouted on Land," Science News, March 12, 1994, p. 173
See above. These presumed microfossils are *whole* organisms, not
parts of organisms, like a scale turning into a feather, so they are not
a valid comparison.
GM>30 million between the first and second example of tarsiers
>R. D. Martin, "Bonanza at Shanghuang," Nature, 368, April 14, 1994, p. 586.
Tarsiers are a whole animal, so this is not a valid comparison. A valid
comparision would be between a reptile's scale and a tarsier's hair.
GM>60 million between first and second AFrican turtle
>Eugene S. Gaffney and James W. Kitching, "The Most Ancient African
Turtle," Nature, 369, May 5, 1994, p. 55.
Another whole animal, so not a valid comparison.
GM>90 million years between the first and second fossilized turd [...].
>Dianne Edwards, et al, "Coprolites as evidence for Plant-Animal Interaction
>in Siluro-Devonian Terrestrial Ecosystems," Nature, Sept. 28, 1995, p. 329
Now this might be a valid comparison if Glenn could show that the "first...
fossilized" turd was in fact a proto-turd which had evolved into a fully
formed "second fossilized turd! :-)
GM>60 million between the first and second fossilized gilled-mushroom
>D. S. Hibbett, D. Grimaldi, and M. J. Donoghue, "Cretaceous Mushrooms in
>Amber," Nature, 377, Oct. 12, 1995, p. 487
Same problem.
GM>1.1 billion year gap between the first and second eclogite
>Andreas Moller, et al, "Evidence for a 2 GA subduction zone: Eclogites in
>the Usagaran belt of Tanzania," Geology, Dec. 1995, p. 1067
According to http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~jill/eclogite.html, an eclogite
is a *rock*, not a fossil of a once-living organism:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eclogite is a dense, green plutonic rock composed of coarse grains of
green, sodium-rich pyroxene (omphacite) and pale pink, magnesium rich
garnet (almandite and pyrope); kyanite and rutile are also common.
Chemically, an eclogite is equivalent to basalt. It occurs as small bodies or
blocks that appear to have been formed in the lowermost crust and upper
mantle, where igneous and metamorphic processes merge. Most eclogites
shows signs of retrogressive metamorphism, with the pyroxene and garnet
crystals separated by rims of hornblende and plagioclase that have
developed from the reaction between these crystals. Common minerals are:
garnet, quartz, omphacite pyroxene, and sometimes kyanite, phengite,
paragonite, zoisite, dolomite, and corundum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Glenn is a geophysicist, he must know that an "eclogite" is just a
rock and not a fossil. His inclusion in his list, with no explanation, is
therefore misleading.
GM>25 million year gap between the first and second shark
>Ivan J. Sansom, M.M. Smith and M. P. Smith, "Scales of Thelodont and
>shark-like fishes from the Ordovician of Colorado," Nature, 379:628-630,
>Feb. 15, 1996, p. 628
Now this scale would qualify if "the...second shark" was sprouting
feathers! ;-)
GM>50 million year gap between the first and second fossil vascular plants
>Chongyang Cal, Shu Ouyang, Yi Wang, Zongjie Fang, Jiayu rong Liangyu
>Geng and Xingxue Li "An Early Silurian Vascular Plant," Nature, 379, Feb. 15,
>1996, p. 592
These are whole plants, not a part of the "first...fossil vascular plants"
changing into a part of the "second fossil vascular plant."
GM>45 million year gap between the first and second spider
>Paul A. Selden, "Fossil mesothele spiders," Nature, 379, Feb. 8, 1996, p.
>498
Another two whole animals, therefore same problem. Also, in the article,
the earlier of these two spiders is not thought to be ancestral to the other.
GM>20 million year gap between the first and second Tyrannosaur
>" Fossil may be oldest known tyrannosaur", Dallas Morning News, June 24,
>1996, p. 10D
Same problem. And I seem to remember Glenn recently criticising someone
for citing Time magazine -the "Dallas Morning News" is not exactly a
scientific journal!
GM>65 million year gap between the first and second birds in Malagasy
>Catherine A. Forster, et al, "The First Cretaceous Bird from Madagascar,"
>Nature 382, August 8, 1996, p. 532
No scales turning into feathers? Besides there is no evidence in the article
that there is a 65 million year gap between this bird and other Cretaceous
birds. Glenn appears to have just used the date of the end of the Cretaceous
(65 million years ago) and subtracted the date of modern birds from it. But
this is fallacious because the article points out that when this fossil was laid
down, it was still part of "a large portion of Gondwana".
GM>450 million year gap between the first and second fossilized tubeworm
>community
>C.T.S. Little, et al, "Silurian Hydrothermal-vent Communitiy from the
>Southern Urals, Russia," Nature, 385, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 146-148, p. 146
As above. But again the article does not claim that there is a "450 million
year gap between the first and second fossilized tubeworm community".
The whole Silurian was not even 450 million years ago - it was between
439 and 408.5 million years ago. The article actually mentions that it
"shares...tubeworms with...other ancient vent assemblages" (p146).
GM>160 million year gap between the first and second pollen eating insects
>http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/html/970508d.htm
Whole insects.
GM>37 million year gap between the first and second fossil sponge
>Chia-Wei Li, Jun-Yuan Chen and Tzu-En Hua,"Precambrian Sponges with
>Cellular Structures," Science 279(1998):879-882, p. 879
Whole sponges.
GM>65 million year gap between the first and second crawfish fossil
>Loren E. Babcock et al, "Paleozoic-Mesozoic Craytfish from Antarctica:
>Earliest Evidence of Freshwater Decapod Crustaceans," Geology
>26(1998):6:539-542,
This was just a claw. There is no evdidence of any marked change of this
part into something quite different, in that 65 my.
GM>94 million year gap between the first and second coelurosaurian dinosaur
>Xijin Zhao, Xing Xu, "The Oldest Coelurosaurian," Nature 394(1998) p. 234
Whole dinosaurs.
So *none* of Glenn's examples are of a part of one organism (like a scale)
turning into another quite different part (like a feather). So he has not
substantiated his claim that it is "quite normal" to see an 80 million year
gap between a reptile's part (Longisquama's scales) and a bird's part
(Archaeopteryx's feather).
And at least three of Glenn's examples: "1.1 billion year gap between the
first and second eclogite", "65 million year gap between the first and
second birds in Malagasy", and "450 million year gap between the first and
second fossilized tubeworm community"; are either misleading, or
downright wrong. I call on Glenn to live up to the same standards he is
always trying to impose on others, and correct his list.
GM>[...] Don't bother replying Stephen [...]
Whole dinosaurs.
So *none* of Glenn's examples are of a part of one organism (like a scale)
turning into another quite different part (like a feather). So he has not
substantiated his claim that it is "quite normal" to see an 80 million year
gap between a reptile's part (Longisquama's scales) and a bird's part
(Archaeopteryx's feather).
And at least three of Glenn's examples: "1.1 billion year gap between the
first and second eclogite", "65 million year gap between the first and
second birds in Malagasy", and "450 million year gap between the first and
second fossilized tubeworm community"; are either misleading, or
downright wrong. I call on Glenn to live up to the same standards he is
always trying to impose on others, and correct his list.
GM>[...] Don't bother replying Stephen [...]
Glenn forgets that I post to the List as a whole, not to him especially. It is
*Glenn's* problem if he does not want to face up to criticism of his posts. I
have often found, when I check up on Glenn's sources, they do not support
the spin he is putting on them. Other readers might be interested to see
what an unreliable guide Glenn can be, and learn to take his confident
prnouncements with a grain of salt!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------